In a spiritual world of quick fixes and vague emotion, is it crazy to believe there is still a place for insights based on simple, basic, theological understanding. I believe it is worth exploring.

Friday, September 26, 2014

A Voice from the Past - Constantine

The great majority, however, in their folly, ascribe the regulation of the universe to nature, while some imagine fate, or accident, to be the cause. With regard to those who attribute the control of all things to fate, they know not that in using this term they utter a mere word, but designate no active power, nor anything which has real and substantial existence. For what can this fate be, considered in itself, if nature be the first cause of all things? Or what shall we suppose nature itself to be, if the law of fate be inviolable? Indeed, the very assertion that there is a law of fate implies that such law is the work of a legislator: if, therefore, fate itself be a law, it must be a law devised by God.

Constantine the Great 260-337 AD, (as transcribed by Eusebius, 263-339 AD), The Oration of the Emperor Constantine, Chapter IV, (translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, T & T Clark and Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996, Second Series, Vol. 1) (This speech comes down to us by way of Eusebius and it is difficult to know how close these are to Constantine's exact words.)

Can fate be seen as an adequate explanation for the existence of all things? Can there be an initial basis for how things work that exists of itself without God for a cause?

I the interests of full disclosure, I have been following a pattern of quoting the individual whose life I have given a commentary on in a post that week. Constantine was too important a individual to skip the commentary. But I seriously considered skipping the quote. Especially since I am not clear how much of this was put in his mouth before or after the speech. But I felt in fairness I ought to find something to include, if for not other reason than to show where he was coming from. Be I sympathize with your not regarding him as an authority.

By the "laws of fate" I believe he meant something similar to what we would call the physical laws. But I cannot claim to know his precise definition. But that is how I took him.

I think that Constantine was the first national/political leader to use the Christian religion (I see that different than Christianity) to persecute (instead of love) the Jews. In that respect Constantine was no more a Christian leader than other leaders who persecuted the Jews..

I have no desire to defend or rehabilitate Constantine. But it is easy to blame everything you dislike on someone you dislike. I would be nice to describe the pre-Constantine attitude toward Jews as always kind and charitable, but it was not. There were reasonable attempts to persuade Jews of the truth of Christianity but there was also considerable hostility. We can see this even in the New Testament. The attitude Constantine expressed about not wanting to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Jews was I suspect common among Christians of the time.

But the one thing that is clear is that Constantine by mingling "Christianity" however nominal with the state helped bring about the later serious Jewish persecutions. Not only because you cannot persecute anyone if you are not in charge of state, but because there is a strong temptation for those in power to use it to suppress those they disagree with. In this sense Constantine is responsible but it is more of a unintentional result.

My point is to basically contrast how a Roman religious leader like Constantine viewed the Jews with a true Christian leader (like Paul - see Romans 9). Constantine seemed to reflect the ill feelings of past Roman leaders towards the Jews while Paul seemed to exemplify a deep love for them.

The issue seemed to have influenced religious and/or political leaders since Constantine as they exalted ethnicity and nationality over their obligation to love ethnic groups and nationalities that are different from their own. And the issue is exacerbated when those leaders claim to be a Christian.

As I said I have no desire to defend Constantine. But I do want to avoid seeing the time before Constantine as a sort of halcyon time without any serious problems. As I read the New Testament epistles the impression I get is there were struggles from the every beginning.

Paul in Romans 9 does exemplify the right Christian attitude toward Jews. But I get the definite impression Paul was expressing it because there were already those who were beginning to despise Jews and he was rebuking them (see Romans 11:16-24). So as pleasant as it might be to do so I do not feel comfortable blaming it all off on Constantine.

Do you know of an influential leader before Constantine (maybe one of the early bishops like Iraneus) that introduced antisemitism to the church? Perhaps Constantine was simply following the teachings of his predecessors?

This is not something where it is easy to draw a hard line as it seems to have snuck in gradually over time. It is also sometimes difficult to disentangle expressions of differences of opinion from a tendency to despise what is Jewish. The Letter of Barnabas (which is not really by Barnabas), about 100 AD, in my opinion was already beginning to show a contempt for things Jewish. Marcion, 85-160 AD reached a conclusion that all things Jewish were bad and the God of the OT was different from the God of the NT. He was condemned as a heretic, but most break-offs represent ideas that are found in a weaker form in the larger group. Irenaeus, 125-202 AD seems to have generally avoided this tendency though he made a couple of strong remarks. Tertullian, 160-220 AD, though he is seriously trying to persuade people, does come off as somewhat harsh, but Tertullian is always somewhat harsh. Eusebius 263-339 AD is a contemporary of Constantine and may have been influenced by him, but uses much stronger language, which seems to represent a fixed opinion of long standing. This is what I can come up with on short notice. I suspect there is more out there but if so it would take more study to find them.

I think that you would like a book that I just finished, Blood Brothers by Christian leader Elias Chacour. In it he speaks about Palestine, the land where he was born and has ministered for 50 years. He says that it is the way of Abraham that will bring peace Jerusalem and not the way of Moses and Joshua. Abraham peacefully coexisted with the Canaanite. He honored Melchezidek. Moses and Joshua departed from the ways of their forefathers and took the land by force instead of by love. To be a peacemaker on must get past ethnic biases and learn to see others as their brothers and not their enemies.